Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[G.Subramaniam]

Indian neo-Theravada is very anti-Hindu sponsored by a Japanese monk

[Husky]

[quote name='Husky' date='10 July 2010 - 10:05 PM' timestamp='1278779252' post='107392']First, Buddhism tried to persecute local religions to extinction - for example, even later, it consciously and systematically attempted this in Tibet and succeeded (a decent book on the subject is better, but www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=40,5769,0,0,1,0 hints at a little on the Bon case, even though it also brushes over the difficulties and the extent of what has been lost).[/quote]Just going to paste stuff from that link:

Bon: Then and now

by Sonam Ongmo, Kuensel Online, Jan 18, 2008



B L Bansal, author of Bon: Its encounter with Buddhism in Tibet, says that Buddhist promoters in Tibet were very cautious seeking permission and patronage from the kings. But it was forthcoming as Buddhism “was a more humanizing force for an otherwise rough and warlike people.” Buddhism also seemed to be more egalitarian than Bon, which at that time subscribed to animal and human sacrifice. As a result, Bon practitioners suffered discrimination and even persecution. While some fled to other regions in the Himalayas, including Bhutan, others were banished to eastern Tibet. Those who remained were forced to convert. This led to an era where Bonpos hid their texts to save them from destruction. Karmay says that there is a difference between the Bon and the Nyingmapa tradition of hiding these termas. “Padmasambhava and his disciples are said to have hidden religious texts because their followers were not yet spiritually mature to understand them,” while “Bonpos had no choice but to conceal them.”

[color="#800080"](Read between the lines to gauge the extent of the persecution. For people to flee requires serious persecution. As in: Islam caused Buddhists of India to flee for countries to the north and south of India.)[/color]



The famous Dunhuang manuscripts, Buddhist texts that were discovered in a cave along the silk route in the 1900’s, contained some information about this era. According to Karmay, one of these was an attempt to “incite non-Buddhists to take up Buddhism.”



The text, he says, warns ordinary men against mu stegs, non-buddhist or Bonpos, and advises them not to believe in the mo bon, Bon priest. The text also warns against worshipping certain categories of beings like dre, srin, bdud, and bgegs.

[color="#800080"](Reminiscent of this.)[/color]



After its entry into Tibet during King Sontsen Gampo’s tenure, Buddhism continued to be challenged by Bon as the people’s belief in rituals and spirits were deeply entrenched. But by the time King Trisong Detshen came to power, Buddhism would gain a stronghold in Tibet with his invitation of great Indian saints like Santaraksita and Padmasambhava. He also built many Buddhist monasteries including Samye.



[color="#0000FF"]Padmasambhava, it is said, played a crucial, if not political, role bringing religious order to Tibet by subduing the dres, srins and bduds. Bansal says: “The Tibetans, who were steeped in superstition and felt themselves besieged on every side by malignant devils, welcomed the Guru in the fervent belief that he had brought them deliverance from their terrible tormentors.”[/color] Padmasambhava is also credited with leaving a special mark on Tibetan Buddhism, especially the Nyingmapa sect. Buddhism, which had already been assimilating practices and rituals from Bon, and vice versa, was now influenced by these new Tantric teachings.

[color="#800080"](Sounds like the usual self-promotion and painting the rival religion as having oppressive, superstitious and even inhumane beliefs and practices. Else no one would feel the need to buy the new religion.)[/color]



Bon adherents were not to be outdone though. They began discreetly translating Bon texts from the Shangshung language to Tibetan. They also began laying down their philosophical beliefs, by then already influenced by Buddhism, into writing. Some of these were also hidden.

[color="#800080"](Seems like the Bonpo weren't quite so bad as Buddhists made them appear. No retaliations of a similar nature from their end, let alone any violence: when they are described as "not to be outdone", all they did was translate their own texts into the current local language. So maybe the 'dangerous evilness' of Bon was all just the usual propaganda by organised Buddhism against other established and popular religions.)[/color]



When King Lang Darma came to power (836-42), Karmay says, Buddhism began to suffer a decline because the Buddhist clergy became hungry for more political power so the king reacted by persecuting them. It seems that the religious and political struggles eventually weakened the powerful country and both religions suffered setbacks when the king was murdered. What followed was a Tibet fragmented into principalities and into different sects of Buddhism.



By the eleventh century, as different sects of Buddhism grew, so did Bon which, by then, had become a fully organized religion with its own works of kanjur and tenjur. According to Per Kvaerne, a professor of History of Religions and Tibetology at the University of Oslo, the life of Tonpa Shenrab echoed similarities with that of Buddha Shakyamuni and even with that of Ling Gesar. But social discrimination against them persisted.



In 1679, the fifth Dalai Lama became the first ruler to embark on a “policy of reconciliation,” between Bon and Buddhists, says Karmay. A decree made Yungdrung Bon, Everlasting Bon, an essential esoteric teaching. [color="#0000FF"]After the Fifth Dalai Lama’s rule, however, “the Gelug theocracy gradually fell into the hands of fundamentalists and joined the cult of Shugden.” The reconciliation process reverted to where it was before, with hostility towards Nyingmaps and Bonpos. This attitude and situation remained unchanged until 1959.[/color]



Some time in 1988, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama visited the Bon Menri monastery in India, where the Bonpos had relocated to promote religious tolerance. “On this occasion, he graciously put on the Bon religious hat and held the sceptre of Tonpa Shenrab Miwo to show that he embraces the religion as did his predecessor,” writes Karmay.

[color="#800080"](So it's not enough to have repeatedly persecuted Bonpos in their homeland in Tibet and then driven them to India, now Tibetan Buddhists have to missionise them in India as well. Can't they leave these overtures well alone? These "reconciliations" seem merely to periodically swing back to the old Buddhist suppression of Bon.)[/color]

And interesting that the very religion (Hindu) always accused of persecuting Buddhism, Jainism etc. by dubious hysterians is not just the one that's actually been on the receiving end, but also the one that accepts persecuted populations of all sorts into the land and lets them exist in peace.

So India welcomed the Bonpos - who were persecuted out of Tibet by Buddhism - and gave them room to be. How very Hindu. And I bet Hindus didn't missionise among the Bonpos, just like Hindus don't missionise among the Tibetan Buddhists who have refuge in Bharatam either. It's called Live And Let Live. So what was all this about "compassion" that Buddhism/... "invented" and "introduced"? Seems like the Hindu Dharmic religion is the more innately compassionate in practice and outlook and didn't require the alleged lessons in this from other Indic traditions. Perhaps other Indic traditions are not necessary to explain the existence of compassion in old traditional religions? Excess violence against other creatures is not condoned and even discouraged in traditions outside India also. (It's a miracle! Or rather, seems like common, humane sense to me.)



This again:

The Buddhist notion of non-injury and compassion toward all living beings

Yet it seems to have remained at a notion - when it came to leaving other legitimate religions alone at any rate.





Related to #27 or #28 - about this ridiculous segment:

Why did the Chinese not follow Hinduism but follow Buddhism.

The obvious answer is that they're civilizationally too dumb to understand the intricacies and the depth of the philosophy of Hinduism.

(a) Enough with reducing Hindu religion to "philosophy" - when the latter refers to a *part* of Hindu religion.



Like the west did in the late 20th century, today's armchair Indians like to imagine that "philosophy" is the culmination of religion. But it is not. That is not what attracts people to religion either. (Besides, "philosophising" comes naturally to all heathens and requires no exertion.)

Religion is ever popular because the unconverted, unsubverted laity *like* their ancestral Gods. Christianism and the post-christian west groping for self-identity (and thus latching onto 'reconstructionisms of polytheisms') realise this. Even the fundamentally non-theistic Buddhism has had to reconcile with this.

But modern Indoos simply can't fathom it.



(b.) There is nothing "dumb" about the Chinese or their civilisation or their indigenous systems of thought. E.g. Daoist thought says things that Vedanta also says. It independently came to some of the same conclusions. <- Not hard to come upon (Hindus and Taoists weren't the only ones, one could point out at least one other non-'IE' religio-tradition with independently-derived, yet similar, understanding). Any later points of contact with this aspect of Hindu Dharma would have merely confirmed it for them.

People who know nothing about Daoism really should stop displaying their ignorance. I'm not claiming I "know" Daoism, I'm just saying that they *obviously* don't.



(c.) "Why did the Chinese not follow Hinduism but follow Buddhism."

The question by the Thai is all wrong.

Buddhism proliferated in far E and SE Asia precisely because Hindu Dharma had unintentionally paved the way: as I already stated, Buddhism had learned to spread atop a Hindu base, which is why Buddhism automatically used it again.

Previously - before Buddhism - Hindu religion (Hindu Gods and the views of them) had been easily incorporated into the local religions by these other Asians precisely because they are attracted to (their own, ancestral) Gods in a similar manner. <- The way Hellenismos spread easily in the non-GrecoRoman regions of the Mediterranean and in the ME for the same reasons.



(d) One more thing, but it is not trivial:

Philosophy is particularly a GrecoRoman religious concept belonging to Hellenismos. There are intentions to reclaim this religiously-important word from the way English and other christianised languages have abused the word by generalising/universalising it, and restore its (true) Hellenistic meaning. Best of luck to them.

In any case, access to the word 'philosophy' should certainly be denied to all the uppity people - incl. Indoos - who deny Gods or else sideline the Gods by making 'philosophy' into a major show and the Gods themselves into a minor one. Because Philosophy is intimately associated with the Gods of l'Olympe, from whom it derived. (Note how I didn't make the rules.)

[Guest]

One more article from HP. This time no less than Sri Sri Sri Sri Sri...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sri-sri-ra...36512.html



Look at the comments section; trolls from TSP and Buddhism sympathizers are everywhere.

[Pandyan]

Sri Sri is such a puny little weak bastard. Typical baba who makes money off Hindus and then talks shit on them. Its fitting that his article is on that whore, Arianna Huffington's site.

[Guest]

^^^^

Come on, be nice now <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I like DailyKos much better than HP. One has to hunt for good articles on HP. - sorry for the OT. Commenting on Sri would be totally OT <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[Husky]

^ A dialogue about Princess SiSi and HuffPuff.





Sorry to keep coming back to the same item, but apparently I forgot to point out the following, in case anyone was so very deaf and so totally blind they couldn't work it out for themselves (well, there are such types, you know):



These two bits from #42 above -

www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=40,5769,0,0,1,0

1.

But it was forthcoming as Buddhism “was a more humanizing force for an otherwise rough and warlike people.” Buddhism also seemed to be more egalitarian than Bon, which at that time subscribed to animal and human sacrifice.

It's repeating Buddhist propaganda of the time in order to declare again - for our age - (just in case the onlooker thought of sympathising with Bonpos) that "Bon and Bonpos Deserved It".



Leaving out the old, obviously-motivated Tibetan Buddhist anti-Bon dawaganda, which doesn't count, is there any data/evidence that Bonpos sacrificed humans? In this case, with the phrase "Human Sacrifice", I mean specifically: religiously-dictated and pre-meditated death/mutilation/deliberate-injury of unwilling human. (Versus some harmless symbolic show that merely depicts a human being sacrificed.) And I mean a definite repeated pattern of it, not a one-off accident (something gone horribly wrong).

Human sacrifice has existed in human history across the world, so it's not impossible, but I'm just curious about the veracity (or not) in Bon in particular being guilty of it.



2.

After its entry into Tibet during King Sontsen Gampo’s tenure, Buddhism continued to be challenged by Bon as the people’s belief in rituals and spirits were deeply entrenched.

Again, read between the lines: "the people’s belief in rituals and spirits were deeply entrenched" is the usual Hystery-Contorted-By-Victors-And-Their-Modern-Blinkered-Cheerleaders' way of unwillingly admitting - out of necessity of logical continuity - how the Tibetan people were deeply attached to their own religion, and how serious levels of persecution (the kind that caused Bonpos to flee their homeland into neighbouring countries) was required to shake the masses from it and convert them to Buddhism.

[agnivayu]

Buddhism Egalitarian? You mean like the slaves in Tibetan monasteries or the Burakamin untouchable caste of Japan where 3 million face horrendous discrimination. Unlike India with it's affirmative action policies no such thing exists for the Burakamin.

Dalai Lama, the hero of Western Buddhists would have become a Chinese prisoner breaking rocks if it weren't for Hindu generosity. What arrogance from these Western Buddhists. Most of them are perverts anyway, just doing a little meditation on the side. You can't sniff Cocaine, get drunk and seek enlightenment like these western buddhists seem to think.

The main reason Buddhism is praised by the West while Hinduism is attacked is simple. There is no large Buddhist country out there that can challenge the West. It's a classic Western tactic to heap praises on minority groups while attacking any large culture which could even remotely challenge them, example the demonization of China in the Western Media (Yellow Peril) or the attacks on Hinduism.

If India was a 1 Billion Buddhist country, I guarantee you the Western Buddhists will be the first ones to dump Buddhism and start attacking it.

[Guest]

^^^

The average Joe and Jane do not care about other countries challenging the Western hegemony. Global strategies are the luxury of a few arm-chair & real strategists. The progressives and liberals are enamored by certain ideals that challenge their own tradition.

[agnivayu]

[quote name='Swamy G' date='14 July 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1279124026' post='107459']

^^^

The average Joe and Jane do not care about other countries challenging the Western hegemony. Global strategies are the luxury of a few arm-chair & real strategists. The progressives and liberals are enamored by certain ideals that challenge their own tradition.

[/quote]



The average person is a sheep steered by the tiny % of people who are intellectuals. Nothing new here. Do you really think the Western power brokers don't think about population and how it affects cultural, economic and military dominance.

[Guest]

It is the same case across the globe. In the West, which is almost a free society, different thoughts can gain traction through various means. It is not a closed society, heck I could still buy the Communist Manifesto or Hindu books. So the intellectuals cannot fully control the books and sites that are out there. There are plenty of sites that are sympathetic to the Hindus, no?

[agnivayu]

[quote name='Swamy G' date='15 July 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1279212021' post='107474']

It is the same case across the globe. In the West, which is almost a free society, different thoughts can gain traction through various means. It is not a closed society, heck I could still buy the Communist Manifesto or Hindu books. So the intellectuals cannot fully control the books and sites that are out there. There are plenty of sites that are sympathetic to the Hindus, no?

[/quote]



The internet has dealt a crippling blow to information control. Hindus are and will continue to benefit hugely from this.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='11 July 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1278825185' post='107399']

Just going to paste stuff from that link:





And interesting that the very religion (Hindu) always accused of persecuting Buddhism, Jainism etc. by dubious hysterians is not just the one that's actually been on the receiving end, but also the one that accepts persecuted populations of all sorts into the land and lets them exist in peace.

So India welcomed the Bonpos - who were persecuted out of Tibet by Buddhism - and gave them room to be. How very Hindu. And I bet Hindus didn't missionise among the Bonpos, just like Hindus don't missionise among the Tibetan Buddhists who have refuge in Bharatam either. It's called Live And Let Live. So what was all this about "compassion" that Buddhism/... "invented" and "introduced"? Seems like the Hindu Dharmic religion is the more innately compassionate in practice and outlook and didn't require the alleged lessons in this from other Indic traditions. Perhaps other Indic traditions are not necessary to explain the existence of compassion in old traditional religions? Excess violence against other creatures is not condoned and even discouraged in traditions outside India also. (It's a miracle! Or rather, seems like common, humane sense to me.)



[/quote]

my opinion is this:

there are 3 types of hindu believes

1-Animistic,the favorite variant of Husky.They worship gods just for the sake of it.Its nice to have a powerful friend to talk,the festivals and rituals are nice and intersting,occasionaly the gods can help you to win some money or health.

2-Thoose preocupated whit escaping the self from the sufferince of reincarnation,in more vulgar way to speak,the soul-saving believes.There are buddhism,vedanta,shaiva,tantra and vaishnava.This are my favorites because they learn methods to escape from afterlife suffering.

The 2 type soul-saving schools are way more important for me and they need to missionarise to the whole world.An least if you believe that only indians have a soul that need to be save.Thats sound selfish.

Missionarising is a good thing ,because you help others to live a more suffering-free life and hopefully afterlife.

The problem whit christo-islamic is that they teach the wrong stuff,just like nazi or hitler-adepts are doing.

If i missionarising for womens rights or for freedom of speech i think is a good deed.



If it was after me,i will translate all the ways of soul-salvation in the major languages,organise nicely in a list and spread around the world.Then each individual will choose the salvation way that he think is right for him.



The Husky way to see religion ,from a aesthetical or terestrial benefit,is from my point of view,incomplete.

[HareKrishna]

edit

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='11 July 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1278825185' post='107399']

Just going to paste stuff from that link:





This again:

Yet it seems to have remained at a notion - when it came to leaving other legitimate religions alone at any rate.





Related to #27 or #28 - about this ridiculous segment:



(a) Enough with reducing Hindu religion to "philosophy" - when the latter refers to a *part* of Hindu religion.



Like the west did in the late 20th century, today's armchair Indians like to imagine that "philosophy" is the culmination of religion. But it is not. That is not what attracts people to religion either. (Besides, "philosophising" comes naturally to all heathens and requires no exertion.)

Religion is ever popular because the unconverted, unsubverted laity *like* their ancestral Gods. Christianism and the post-christian west groping for self-identity (and thus latching onto 'reconstructionisms of polytheisms') realise this. Even the fundamentally non-theistic Buddhism has had to reconcile with this.

But modern Indoos simply can't fathom it.



(b.) There is nothing "dumb" about the Chinese or their civilisation or their indigenous systems of thought. E.g. Daoist thought says things that Vedanta also says. It independently came to some of the same conclusions. <- Not hard to come upon (Hindus and Taoists weren't the only ones, one could point out at least one other non-'IE' religio-tradition with independently-derived, yet similar, understanding). Any later points of contact with this aspect of Hindu Dharma would have merely confirmed it for them.

People who know nothing about Daoism really should stop displaying their ignorance. I'm not claiming I "know" Daoism, I'm just saying that they *obviously* don't.



(c.) "Why did the Chinese not follow Hinduism but follow Buddhism."

The question by the Thai is all wrong.

Buddhism proliferated in far E and SE Asia precisely because Hindu Dharma had unintentionally paved the way: as I already stated, Buddhism had learned to spread atop a Hindu base, which is why Buddhism automatically used it again.

Previously - before Buddhism - Hindu religion (Hindu Gods and the views of them) had been easily incorporated into the local religions by these other Asians precisely because they are attracted to (their own, ancestral) Gods in a similar manner. <- The way Hellenismos spread easily in the non-GrecoRoman regions of the Mediterranean and in the ME for the same reasons.



(d) One more thing, but it is not trivial:

Philosophy is particularly a GrecoRoman religious concept belonging to Hellenismos. There are intentions to reclaim this religiously-important word from the way English and other christianised languages have abused the word by generalizing/universalizing it, and restore its (true) Hellenistic meaning. Best of luck to them.

In any case, access to the word 'philosophy' should certainly be denied to all the uppity people - incl. Indoos - who deny Gods or else sideline the Gods by making 'philosophy' into a major show and the Gods themselves into a minor one. Because Philosophy is intimately associated with the Gods of l'Olympe, from whom it derived. (Note how I didn't make the rules.)

[/quote]

a-philosophy is the best part in religion.The whole is made by philosophy(theory)+practice+artistic value.They go together .Common people is true ,do not understand the

intricacies of philosophy and they are satisfied whit watered down versions of it.You need a high iq to be fully philosophical.

b-all major chinese schools are preocupied whit this life only ,unlike soul-saving Vedanta.

These is the reason that buddhism have especially an after-life place in the chinese religion.It didnt have competition from the chinese school in this regard so it became almost a monopoly in soul-saving chinese souls.Same whit shinto(this-life religion)-buddhist Japanese religion.



c-all mongol race was more attracted to buddhism because hinduism is in general more sentimental then buddhism,And mongol race is not as much as sentimental as indians.Evene mahayana become less devotional in china(it become more zen and less devotional).While south east asian mongols become hinayana non-devotional buddhists.

only tantra has similar success as buddhism in the mongol world.



d-maybe it was first a greek word but later become universal.Its like saying that physics is only a greek science because the word is greek.So we should drove out the science from schools because is only a greek stuff.

Beside,some greek philosopher were atheistic so philosophy dont belong only to hellenistic religion.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='09 May 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1273411407' post='106297']



This is something I never understood: why is it always only Hindus who claim all Indic religions are an equal part of Hindu religion and that any who calls themselves Hindu but does not automatically include Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, they are to be threatened that there is No Hindu Religion Otherwise - just a lot of tattered, equally unrelated sects or something. "Either we're all equally related and are part of the Hindu religion, or there is no Hindu religion". (Except that all those other Indic religions are fortunate enough to have their own names and will choose to declare themselves independent religions whenever they want. If only we were allowed that luxury. It's Hindus that won't allow it.)



And does the other side reciprocate ever?

[/quote]

that's because you dont understand the importance of doctrine in the sectarian views.What when shaiva or vaishnava schools claim that while they are culturally hindu,the are not hindu from religion of doctrine point of view.If a shaiva say that shaiva are good version of hinduism and all other hindu sects are the decadent versions of hinduism,or when a vaishnava say that vaishnava is the restoration of the true hinduism degraded in time,what do you say?

See when vaishnava personalists allied themselves whit christians against shankarian advaita impersonalists and atheists.

when shaivas see Shiva as the Supreme and Vishnu as his servant and despise vaishnava who believe otherwise.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Husky' date='10 July 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1278779899' post='107394']



b.) Buddha/Buddhism is NOT the fulfillment of Sanatana Dharma. (Neither is Jainism, nor is Sikhism, etc.) Hindu religion is not dead. Nor does it find fulfilment in other religions or other Gods or other non-God views. It is its own fulfilment: the Hindu Dharmic tradition is a complete religion in itself. I've had enough of Replacement Theology that each missionary religion practices in its own way.





[/quote]

Husky ,please dont follow the 'soviet union style' but folow the 'european union style'.Let them(i mean to all sects not just buddhists) have their doctrinal superiority believe ,dont go as far as denying their different view by refusing the doctrine altogether .

As long as they attack each other in civilized debates it will be harmless ,but if they go to weapons and dirty tricks like today that will be no good.

I as harekrishna member i feel uncomfortable whit your denying-doctrine views.

Im culturaly hindu?Yes ,one of the facts being that Krishna was indian(an least his avatar)

Im reliogious hindu?No.



I aware of christo-islamic and even more universal dogmatism so my goal is to advise other HK to renounce the christian friendship . Its the christians that will not allow them to exist ,not atheists or shankarians.

The buddhists will only weaken themselves by being anti-hindu.Sure they can be if they want but they must do it in the healthy way.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='agnivayu' date='14 July 2010 - 08:59 AM' timestamp='1279077708' post='107449']



If India was a 1 Billion Buddhist country, I guarantee you the Western Buddhists will be the first ones to dump Buddhism and start attacking it.

[/quote]

This probably is not true .

The reason is more likely the view spread by western historians in the beginning of 20 century.All television and readers after them just copy the conclusions.

Christianity was the religion of love.

Islam was a version of christianity ,maybe even a refined version of it(less ritualistic,less intricate doctrines)

Buddhism was pure aerial philosophy.

Hinduism unlike the upper 3 was too tribalistic(versus universal ones above,selfish indians),too caste system(unlike egalitarian),too much black peoples(what good can came from people whit black skin?).

Because this historians were in majority english,they reflect the english views of the 19-20 century.

This view was copied by the neo-buddhists because they find out about buddhism from that english books.



It is not because India could be a future competition to western powers.

Beside India is the only place were they can attack other doctrines.

Islamists are too sensitive so they will chop some neo-buddhist heads(beside ,in general no buddhist big populations are nearby islamic ones).

[agnivayu]

[quote name='HareKrishna' date='17 July 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1279375754' post='107502']

This probably is not true .



It is not because India could be a future competition to western powers.

Beside India is the only place were they can attack other doctrines.

Islamists are too sensitive so they will chop some neo-buddhist heads(beside ,in general no buddhist big populations are nearby islamic ones).

[/quote]



It's absolutely true. Most humans are fair weather friends, they gravitate towards the rich and powerful. As India's industrializes, it won't be a co-incidence that Hinduism will look more impressive but it will also be demonized as a threat (like China is today).



As for your assertion about Mongoloids. In East Asia, whether it's tibetan, thai, Japanese or Chinese, they all worship Gods and have statues etc., what you call animism, so that's hardly just a Indian Hindu thing.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='agnivayu' date='17 July 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1279380033' post='107503']

It's absolutely true. Most humans are fair weather friends, they gravitate towards the rich and powerful. As India's industrializes, it won't be a co-incidence that Hinduism will look more impressive but it will also be demonized as a threat (like China is today).



As for your assertion about Mongoloids. In East Asia, whether it's tibetan, thai, Japanese or Chinese, they all worship Gods and have statues etc., what you call animism, so that's hardly just a Indian Hindu thing.

[/quote]

i didnt deny that they worship gods.

i just show that they are less incline to devotionalism,bhakti ,you name it.

Sure they have feelings ,but usually don't have overwhelming feelings like indians have the tendency to have,an least in the religious sphere.

i was reffering to western buddhists;if India was buddhist ,this western buddhists wont renounce to their buddhism as it was mentioned on this topic.

they are anti-hindu because so was english propaganda in the 19-20 century.

[Husky]

Romani,

It's amazing how wrong you are about ... practically everything.



For example, you're absolutely wrong about:



a) - the reasons you imagine E Asians would have had for "preferring" Buddhism to their own religions (and Hindu elements E Asians had already adopted, if any)



- the majority of lay Mahayana Buddhists of E Asia, and how "devotional" their practice/views are. Where do you get your opinion from, it sounds like nothing I've ever heard or seen from actual practitioners.



BTW, I deliberately gave no examples on Buddhism's interactions with E Asian native religions. No examples means no misconstruing as ammo, means no misuse.



- "all major chinese schools are preocupied whit this life only ... These is the reason that buddhism have especially an after-life place in the chinese religion.It didnt have competition from the chinese school in this regard"

Wrong about Taoism. (Also, Taoism is a religion, not merely a 'school of thought').



- about "'common' people not understanding the intricacies of philosophy"

"Philosophy" (English use) comes naturally to heathens. It's just that for the laity (and, in religions concerning the Gods, most certainly not only the laity), "philosophy" is but part of their living religion.



- wrong about the use of "sentimentality" in describing the way traditional followers of Gods-based, Gods-centred religions view their Gods. But others make this absurd mistake/accusation also.



- wrong about the Chinese and Japanese traditionalists and how they see their Gods (it's quite the same as traditional Hindus see their Gods)

i just show that they are less incline to devotionalism,bhakti ,you name it.

Sure they have feelings ,but usually don't have overwhelming feelings like indians have the tendency to have,an least in the religious sphere.

No. Rather the opposite. They are more honourable. Do you even know what their private religious life is like at home, do you know how they actually view their Gods?

Unlike the overwhelming mass of absolutely cowardly angelsk-speaking Hindu vocalists today, who are so successfully and so thoroughly alienated by the Miseducation Project (and consequently, all their subsequent generations are even more permanently lost to the Hindu religion), traditional Taoists are full of love for their Gods. The Gods are their life. What Julian was (=a devout follower of his Gods) - just as other traditional Hellenes were - is what the traditional Taoists and Shintos are. I.e. they are like the ancient Hindus and the fast-dying-out older generation of Hindus, and the fewer (but still extant) invisible Hindoos.

I find traditional Taoists and Shintos - though silent and hence invisible too - something to take pride in.





b.) - you are wrong about the way traditional Hellenes viewed Philosophy. Julian is certainly not the only example to make the point I had mentioned in my post (and I merely re-iterated their views, of course: it was too serious an issue for me to opinionate on). And Julianus was himself re-stating the common views of his Hellenistic predecessors and contemporaries. R.Smith's explanation of Julian's reason for choosing to bring up this established Hellenistic view in public - in order to use it vis-a-vis christianism - certainly has its merits. However, the point here is that Julian's supporting references to his predecessors' views on the matter, shows that it was indeed the established, common Hellenistic POV.

It is Julian and his fellow Hellenes that know their religion.

d-maybe it was first a greek word but later become universal.Its like saying that physics is only a greek science because the word is greek.So we should drove out the science from schools because is only a greek stuff.

Your logic is wrong. It does not and never did concern a mere word in the case of Philosophy: Philosophy is a religious term and has a very specific meaning. The error I speak of is akin to saying "Vedanta is universal and can be applied to all religions in the world" if we just adopted it into English to mean what "philosophy" means now in English. No, Vedanta is not universal, it is Hindu alone.

English has been misusing Philosophy in this way.

It subverted a core religious term that has a specific meaning (which it deserves to retain) among those who own everything to do with the word.





c) The "animist" accusation is entertaining.

Let's try to recall the different things you've accused me of being over the years of your visiting IF.

Smarta. Wrong. Advaitin. Wrong. On yet another occasion, you declared I was doing some random "folk religion" or something. Wrong. (Unless it's defined as just the religion of the Hindu folk. )

Then there was another accusation - I forget. (You accuse so often, it's hard to keep track.)

Now animist. (Ironically, despite the christoword, you may be getting closer. Well, it depends on the intended meaning/connotation of animist.)



I'll make it easy for you.

Leaving aside my own person, my *ancestors* - down to my parents and uncles and aunts - are of the very same religion as the Hindu monkey that hugged his=my Rama-moorti before dying at Rama's feet and the Hindu Cobra that did puja to his=my Shiva-moorti (news articles on this were posted in the Hindu thread I think). I.e. the Hindu religion. My ancestors are of the religion of the RuShis who set down knowledge of the Hindu religion/Gods in our various scriptures.

The Husky way to see religion ,from a aesthetical or terestrial benefit,is from my point of view,incomplete.

You're again creating a "Husky" that doesn't exist. I will state my views for myself if or when I choose to. Don't ascribe opinions to me (which you seem to do just so you can declare you disagree, the same way you presume to attach labels to me - how often must you be so totally wrong before you will stop it?)





d)

shankarian advaita impersonalists

Poor misrepresented Shankara Bhagavadpada: most of the vocalists speaking on Vedanta today and bringing him in, entirely ignore his many works on the Gods and imagine that he was purely a "philosopher", and so they keep peddling just that one aspect of his: the one aspect that they are able to appreciate. It's because the Gods don't compute to the modern people who have developed an interest in Vedanta: people who generally tend to have been non-religious until they 'discovered' Advaitam. (I have yet to find one who didn't fit this pattern.) In contrast, the Gods certainly computed to Shankara. E.g. he declares at the end of his SAL, which is in praise of the one he was named for, that he did not lie in his praise. People who discover Shankara and his explication of Vedanta frequently dismiss - when they do not outright ignore - all the rest of his works, as being but his materials "meant for the (unintellectual) Hindoo masses". Yet all his output was part of his same Hindooness, and he was sincere about them all.

They've entirely hijacked (<- that word again) Adi Shankaracharya. But he was just a Hindoo. An Acharya, yes (I have made his stotras on the Gods my own*, as I have those of others before and after him: they so eloquently say what I want to say), but a Hindoo.

* Lines like "aham chAtibAlo, bhavAn lokatAtaH" addressed to shaktipaNe :mine: are simply perfect for me to want to steal the words. The entire stotram is magnificent, like the shloka on worshipping His Twelve Infallible Arms that protect the Universe :love: and the one on the same Baby - who was already seen addressed as the Father of the Kosmos - running to its Dad.



Anyway, I think affected and concerned Hindus really should reclaim the Acharya before it is too late for them. Else the way Vedanta is being manipulated in our time (particularly Advaitam, esp. as explained by Shankara), will force these Hindus into an unnatural 'choice' - where there never was any before - between the Gods and Shankara/Shankara's explication of Advaitam. That was never his intention.





e) You know nothing about the Hindu religion. You just do some westernised brand of Indian religion.

Your two or 3 years (or were it even decades) of dabbling in ISKCON doesn't make you an expert on Hindu religion. And it certainly gives you no right to presume as you do. You keep playing the put-upon ISKCONite and declaring This and That from behind the safety you think your assumed label/affiliation buys you. But I am quite unaffected: in this one respect I am entirely unlike other modern Hindus, in that I'm not remotely interested in gaining or retaining western converts and their mostly passing interest in 'Hinduism'. Privately, I wait for them to get bored and find something else to do, as fortunately so many do. (Goes without saying that I have no problem with people of western origin who genuinely find their home to be in Hindu religion. But they are very different and do not concern us here.)

You really ought to stop your presumption in lecturing Hindus about our own religion, it got tiresome the very first time you tried it. You, and similar persons, sound like all those western people dabbling in Taoism (they get their knowledge of "Taoism" by reading books, of course, or from joining overseas orgs) who then ignorantly and arrogantly lecture Taoists and the world that "Taoism doesn't actually have Gods". Fortunately, the traditional Taoists expressly disregard them and their opinionations.



Why Hindus continue to stand for all the interference, I don't know.





f)

when shaivas see Shiva as the Supreme and Vishnu as his servant and despise vaishnava who believe otherwise.

Now don't make up absurdities.



[color="#0000FF"]INSERTED:[/color] You don't deserve to know, but I will write it anyway for any poor Hindoo out there who naturally felt slighted by such lame accusations like yours involving "despise" and other inanities.



To Shaivas, Vishnu is seen as an equal, and those that ultimately make no conscious distinction, see him as an extension of Shiva's very self (or vice-versa).

Confirmed by Shiva's name as Vishnuvallabha, and the consequent fact that Vishnu (like Uma) is seen as occupying half of Shiva (or vice-versa, or rather, since it is an equal half, Harihara is part Shiva part Vishnu). Other full-on Shaivas like Lingayats don't make any distinction in quality either, they merely primarily worship their kuladevam (in their case Shiva) like the rest of the Hindus do, but I know for a fact that they worship Vishnu too when the occasion comes and have seen them do so with great eagerness.



It is generally the norm, as far as I know, that Shiva Kovils be constructed with a Sannidhi for Vishnu, as also for various other Gods like Lakshmi, Saraswati, Hanuman, the Navagrahas, etc. (which is why the construction of Shiva Kovils therefore also requires it have a special area for the Navagrahas). And ShivagaNas and, in Tamizh Kovils, Nandikeshwara.

And Hindus who pray in Shiva Kovils do NOT think of the other Gods as servants of Shiva (other than Nandi and the gaNas), but eagerly go to see all the Gods' sannidhis and pray to them all, each time with only the God/Couple they're currently looking at in mind. Shiva requires all these Gods to be worshipped - not as some lesser entities to himself, but so that Hindus do not forget, even in a temple primarily dedicated to Shiva+wife, that there are many Gods (and also particular manifestations of these same Gods) that also deserve Hindus' worship - which is exactly why his Kovils generally must house all these Gods. It is as Shiva wants it.



Pooja to the Shivalingam is likewise considered to be pooja at once offered to the Trimoorti (and all their spouses, of course) and ultimately all the Hindu Gods of the cosmos, as they are all represented in the very form and construction of the Shiva Lingam itself (most noticeably the Trimoorti is represented, but not exclusively them). The Shiva Lingam is a concentrated form of the Shiva Kovil, which is a concentrated form of the Kosmos. So the Hindu whose kuladevam is Shiva, when he prays to a Shivalingam, is praying to Shiva+every other Hindu God too. This is both consciously and subconsciously so. Certainly, the prayers that are offered ultimately go to all the Gods. Which is why Shiva becomes so immensely pleased. A Shiva Lingam is Shiva. A Shiva Lingam is Shiva+Uma. A Shiva Lingam is the Trimoorti (their spouses automatically included). A Shivalingam is also All the Hindu Gods. A Shiva Lingam is a concentrated version of Everything.



You're just obviously ignorant of Hindu religion altogether.





Anyway, to the easiest question of them all:

If a shaiva say that shaiva are good version of hinduism and all other hindu sects are the decadent versions of hinduism,or when a vaishnava say that vaishnava is the restoration of the true hinduism degraded in time,what do you say?

Your If is theoretical.

Regardless: I always say that People (and modern movements) Who Have Never Seen* the Hindu Gods Should Shut Up about said Gods. (Well, it is the only reasonable thing to say.)



[* "seen": with which I obviously don't mean in a vision/in the mind's eye/while dreaming or even while meditating or other such cases where the evidence can be dubious.]